My previous post got me thinking: Leadership is good. Submission is good. So where does the problem with gender hierarchy come in?

“Loving, humble leadership.” “Joyful, intelligent submission.”

It sounds good, does it not? And I agree: There is something good to it.

But everything has a context.

Melissa told her little daughter, Cherise: “You should trust what the doctor say. He knows what is good for your health.”

One day, little Cherise had to go to the doctor She complained of a pain in her side, not far from her tummy. The doctor said: “We have to take your appendix out.” Little Cherise did not scream or complain at the thought. She submitted to the superior knowledge of the doctor.

Little Cherise grew up. Decades later, she had back problems. She went to another doctor. All the advice he gave seemed to make it worse. He recommended an operation, which she got. After that, her back was even worse. If someone tells her now that she should still trust the doctor, he will be wrong.

This is where complementarianism fails, as I see it.

I believe in humble leadership. Humble leadership say: “I know I am not always right, I know you do not always have to follow me. But in this topic, I know something, and I will share it with you. Follow if you are convinced.”

But complementarian leadership, at its humblest, could only say: “I know I am not always right, but you always have to follow me. Whether you or I know more, follow me.”

Loving leadership say: “I will lead where I can see obstacles my followers cannot, and where I can see opportunities my followers cannot.”

But complementarian leadership, at its most loving, could only say: “I must lead even when my followers see obstacles I cannot, and where they can see opportunities I cannot. Even when they know more, they should not act except when I allow it.” The moment someone say his wife/ the woman in the church could lead where they know more, he is not practicing complementarian leadership any more.

Humble submission say: “You know more, so I submit” or “this is a need to you and only a want to me, so I yield.” “I don’t have to get my way all the time.” (This blogger, you may not believe it, is rather submissive in real life. But I do not want to be so at the cost of wisdom or caring about others.)

Complementarian submission could sometimes say the above. But the wife also has to submit when it means saying: “You know less, but I submit” or “this is a need of me/ our children , but I yield, even if our needs go unmet.” “You can get your way all the time.” It takes a very mature man to not get increasingly self-centered if he can get his way all the time.

Intelligent submission say: “I can see you have studied this, so let us do it your way.” “Your plan sounds more sensible than mine, so we will follow yours.” And then, intelligent submission stop submitting the moment submission seems unwise for reaching the goal. The definition of intelligent submission, as I see it, is to submit only when submission is working towards a good goal. It is not intelligent to give in to, say, a husband who abuses your children, or even to a man who demands his missing socks right now, even though he is going nowhere and you are busy.

Gender hierarchist submission say: “You are male, so let us do it your way.” “Even when your plan do not sound more sensible than mine, we will follow yours.” And gender hierarchy submission keep on submitting when submission seems unwise.

The difference, as I see it, between good and bad leadership and submission, is that good leadership is followed because it has a useful purpose and knows or does what you cannot know/do yourself. Bad leadership is when leadership is to be followed whether it is wise or unwise, productive or counterproductive, good or bad for you. I absolutely believe in the first kind. The second is folly, madness and bondage to follow.

And the difference between complementarian marriage submission and almost all other forms of bad leadership, is that you could usually close your front door and be rid of your employer or your president. With this particular teaching, you cannot close even your bedroom door to it.

Do you believe that some humans have a divine right? Do you think that the son of a king is born with a divine right to rule over others? That whites have a God-given right to rule over blacks?

Me neither. Oh, this have been coaxed in many nice terms in the past: “It is not a right to rule, it is a God-given responsibility to rule wisely.” Kristen, who often comments as KR Wordgazer on many sites, notices:

“God-given responsibility.” Yep. Just a euphemism for “divine right.” It also used to be called “the white man’s burden” and “noblesse oblige.”

Dress it up however you like, FoF. It’s still an assertion of the divine right …

There is, however, one area on which many people still believe in divine right: Evangelical masculists defend the divine right of males to rule females. I can state without a doubt that God does not give that right in any of the 66 books that make up the Bible. God does not, in any command in the Bible, give men as a group the right – or responsibility – to rule.*

Are we rebels who dislike authority when we don’t want men to rule women, or kings to rule, or whites to rule blacks? Once again, Kristen answers: (more…)